4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
All claims are ordered dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Ruling of the NLRC
The NLRC agreed with the conclusions of the LA adding that there is actually no
disparity between the assessment given by the company doctors and the petitioner’s
own physician as they uniformly found the petitioner to be permanently unfit for sea
duty. Dr. Chuasuan categorically declared in his February 7, 2009 letter that “[f]urther
treatment would probably be of some benefit but will not guarantee his fitness to
work.”[24] The final assessment made by the respondents’ doctors also stated that the
petitioner has lost 2/3 of his motion lifting power which can only mean that he is
already permanently unfit for sea service. Regardless of the different disability grading
given by the doctors, the petitioner is undoubtedly already permanently incapacitated.
As such, the NLRC Decision[25] dated May 24, 2010 disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of respondents is DISMISSED
for lack of merit. The assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[26]
The respondents moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied in the NLRC
Resolution[27] dated July 30, 2011.
Ruling of the CA
The respondents sought recourse with the CA which found partial merit in their petition.
The CA disagreed with the LA and the NLRC that there is adequate proof of the
provisions of the CBA. The CA ruled that while the petitioner’s employment contract
states that the “current PSU/ITF TCC Agreement” is incorporated therein, what he
attached to his Position Paper and Motion to Dismiss Appeal and/or Opposition is the
CBA between PSU-ALU-TUCP-ITF and Belships which does not contain Sections 22 and
24 cited by him for his claim and relied upon by the LA in awarding the disability
compensation. In fact, under the said agreement, entitlement to the maximum
disability compensation of either US$110,000.00 or US$90,000.00 is accorded only to
two classes of officers, i.e., the class of radio officers and chief stewards or the class of
electricians and electro technicians - neither of which does the petitioner belong to. The
petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proving by substantial evidence his
entitlement to superior benefits under the purported “ITF TCC CBA” as he merely
submitted copies of the CBA between PSU-ALU-TUCP-ITF and Belships and not the
relevant PSU/ITF TCC Agreement.
The CA sustained the final assessment of the respondents’ physicians assigning Grade 8
disability to the petitioner which is compensable under Section 32 of the POEA-SEC or
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56076
4/11